Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you are saying that I didn't have to have to go through district courts to get my stuff straighened out? And that because you didn't have any problems nobody has problems?

And your experience is typical? Or is it an exception to the rule?
If your records were " lost in one of the big warehouse fires that happened during the base drawdowns in Europe" then that is far from a typical situation, and a situation that not many people are likely to experience. I'm sorry that you had to go trough it, but please stop treating an isolated and minor incident as a major hurdle for proving who you are.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I can relate to this. The paperwork I had to fill in just to go to the States for a holiday really got my goat! You would think that somebody who was going there to spend a lot of cash would be welcome in these tough economic times!

Really? You didn't just spend 10 minutes filling out an ESTA?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Then proof how requiring citizenship was easy for me.

My personal experience might be anecdotal evidence. But it's more evidence than all this magical "it's not that hard to prove" hand waving.

So your experience is "more evidence" than the many thousand that have to prove their identity to apply for US visas each year?

My evidence that some people have serious problems is better than your evidence that nobody has trouble.

 d-usa wrote:
My evidence that some people have serious problems is better than your evidence that nobody has trouble.

I'd ask you not to misrepresent the point I was making, thank you. I didn't say that nobody has trouble, what I was getting at was that the overwhelming majority of people do not have trouble proving their identity. I thought that was sufficiently clear.
You seem to think that your anecdotal evidence of an isolated incident that happened to you, and which many people will not be affected by, trumps thousands of people per year who managed to prove their identity successfully.

How many eligible people loosing their right to vote due to difficulties in proving citizenship is too many then?

 d-usa wrote:
How many eligible people loosing their right to vote due to difficulties in proving citizenship is too many then?

I was waiting for this reduction to absurdity

 d-usa wrote:
How many eligible people loosing their right to vote due to difficulties in proving citizenship is too many then?

How many disenfranchised voters because of fraudulent voters is too many?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many eligible people loosing their right to vote due to difficulties in proving citizenship is too many then?

I was waiting for this reduction to absurdity

So you are okay with people not being able to vote if laws make it to difficult for legitimate voters to prove that they should be allowed to vote?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many eligible people loosing their right to vote due to difficulties in proving citizenship is too many then?

How many disenfranchised voters because of fraudulent voters is too many?

How many fraudulent voters are there?

How many do there need to be?

More documented and proven cases of voter fraud than people that will not be able to vote because of laws that prevent legitimate voters from exercising their rights. That's how many.

 Frazzled wrote:
How many do there need to be?

I would suggest more than the likely number of people dissuaded or unable to vote by any sneaky assed small print in the voter ID proposal.

If you can't even offer any proof that voter fraud is a problem, then there is no excuse to pass laws that will disenfranchise people in order to fix this "problem".

 d-usa wrote:
If you can't even offer any proof that voter fraud is a problem, then there is no excuse to pass laws that will disenfranchise people in order to fix this "problem".

You haven't offered proof it disenfranchises people.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you can't even offer any proof that voter fraud is a problem, then there is no excuse to pass laws that will disenfranchise people in order to fix this "problem".

You haven't offered proof it disenfranchises people.

I gave proof of a 6 month period where I was not able to prove my citizenship and provided plenty of evidence of how it could have very easily been impossible for me to get the required documentation.

But if you are all about big government fixing non-existing problems, then more power to you.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you can't even offer any proof that voter fraud is a problem, then there is no excuse to pass laws that will disenfranchise people in order to fix this "problem".

You haven't offered proof it disenfranchises people.

I gave proof of a 6 month period where I was not able to prove my citizenship and provided plenty of evidence of how it could have very easily been impossible for me to get the required documentation.

But if you are all about big government fixing non-existing problems, then more power to you.

One person is an anecdote not proof.
Further, you have your id. you're not disenfranchised.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you can't even offer any proof that voter fraud is a problem, then there is no excuse to pass laws that will disenfranchise people in order to fix this "problem".

You haven't offered proof it disenfranchises people.

I gave proof of a 6 month period where I was not able to prove my citizenship and provided plenty of evidence of how it could have very easily been impossible for me to get the required documentation.

But if you are all about big government fixing non-existing problems, then more power to you.

One person is an anecdote not proof.
Further, you have your id. you're not disenfranchised.

You are more stubborn than a Dachshund. But I am still glad that you are pro big government passing laws and creating burdens to fix problems that are not real.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you can't even offer any proof that voter fraud is a problem, then there is no excuse to pass laws that will disenfranchise people in order to fix this "problem".

You haven't offered proof it disenfranchises people.

I gave proof of a 6 month period where I was not able to prove my citizenship and provided plenty of evidence of how it could have very easily been impossible for me to get the required documentation.

But if you are all about big government fixing non-existing problems, then more power to you.

One person is an anecdote not proof.
Further, you have your id. you're not disenfranchised.

You are more stubborn than a Dachshund. But I am still glad that you are pro big government passing laws and creating burdens to fix problems that are not real.

When I last voted, the person in front of me had no id, didn't speak English, and clearly had never voted before.

 Frazzled wrote:
When I last voted, the person in front of me had no id, didn't speak English, and clearly had never voted before.

Yet you still marries her. True love knows no barriers.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
When I last voted, the person in front of me had no id, didn't speak English, and clearly had never voted before.

Yet you still marries her. True love knows no barriers.

Well, she was from Chicago. It is a foreign romance!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
When I last voted, the person in front of me had no id, didn't speak English, and clearly had never voted before.

Yet you still marries her. True love knows no barriers.

Well, she was from Chicago. It is a foreign romance!

I'm surprised to find out Texas allows people from other parts of the country in without a passport.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
When I last voted, the person in front of me had no id, didn't speak English, and clearly had never voted before.

Yet you still marries her. True love knows no barriers.

Well, she was from Chicago. It is a foreign romance!

I'm surprised to find out Texas allows people from other parts of the country in without a passport.

It doesn't. Her Dad's an Aggie, so she is a naturalized Texas citizen by default.

 Frazzled wrote:
To those who don't like the cncept of voter id, under what conditions would it be acceptable to have voter id?

When the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down?

SCOTUS didn't really strike it down but passed it back to the Federal Gov't saying that if the states request it then it can be done...or something to that effect

Let to the party here, but what the hay I can jump in and offer my input. After all this is America we where kind of founded on it. That also leads me to why I don't like voter id and other laws made to make less people vote. It's shaving people off of an already too small vetoing pool and we shouldn't be doing that because America is about the will of the people. All the people, not just the ones with ID. For me this is primarily a moral issue. I feel it's immoral in democracy to try shrink the voting pool. That is what this law did what it was intended to do and why it was struck down so easily.

Me personally. I rather don't care on having a "VOTER ID". I kind of agree what New York is doing. Even though you are not a US citizen but you are paying taxes to both state and federal (NY is aiming at state and city level) you should have a right to vote for your favorite delegate.) Even those on benefits are taxed by state and city. Bring a work stub or payment stub to prove you do. Also think a proper form of ID and a utility bill to confirm where you live to vote.

 d-usa wrote:
So you are okay with people not being able to vote if laws make it to difficult for legitimate voters to prove that they should be allowed to vote?

Your argument is just slightly above the "Won't someone think of the children" line You've asked me to come up with some arbitrary number, then you'll ask me to substantiate it, then you'll object to it anyway, so let's just avoid that whole roundabout. It's a loaded question and a logical fallacy, as you've demonstrated above. The only purpose to asking me that question is to get me to say that I believe that people should be disenfranchised, or get me to back pedal. It's the same as the old chestnut "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Having to prove you identification is not difficult in the overwhelming majority of instances. You have to do it to get a driver's license, to get public assistance, to get credit, open a bank account, buy alcohol. It is not an uncommon part of life in the US yet when it comes to ensuring that democracy is not eroded by people with dishonest intentions only then will people object to providing ID. We managed to get a system in place to counter voter fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq yet we cannot manage it here?
I was in the BMV getting my license today, and like everyone else there we manged to do it quite easily. Including the driving skills test it cost $21. If this was too much of an expense for me then I am eligible to vote I could get a free voter's ID (http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2625.htm). For the overwhelming majority of people proving their identity is fairly straight forward.

 d-usa wrote:
How many fraudulent voters are there?

Seeing as you cannot ask people for ID to prove who they are it sort of makes it difficult to establish the extent of any voter fraud. If a polling official sees the same person in line twice and can't ask for ID to prove who they are then it makes getting definitive figures somewhat difficult.